[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ubuntu and CDDs

El mar, 28-09-2004 a las 22:37 -0400, Benj. Mako Hill escribió:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:49:17PM +0200, Miguel A. Arévalo wrote:
> > El mar, 28-09-2004 a las 14:44 -0400, Benj. Mako Hill escribió:
> > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 12:57:23PM +0200, Miguel A. Arévalo wrote:
> > > > El mar, 28-09-2004 a las 11:50 +0200, Sergio Talens-Oliag escribió:
> > > > > El Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 09:35:40AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill va escriure:
> > > > 
> What do you do when you have a fix or a low priority debconf that the
> Debian maintainer says no to? What if they don't say no but they just
> don't answer your emails? What if it's a very important package that
> you can't NMU for what is, in the BTS, a minor or wishlist bug but
> that is essential to your use? What you sometimes *must* do, from an
> absolutist technical position, is forking and I don't think this needs
> to automatically be a bad thing.

	This is not a problem of working with Debian, this is a problem of
working with different people with their own motivations. And will
happen also to Ubuntu, if not with the Debian or GNOME part it will
happen when you try to add KDE, or PHP5 or PostgreSQL 8, etc. etc.

> I think the fundamental difference between CDDs and projects like
> Ubuntu is a political one. Which one has its homepage on
> www.debian.org? Which one is bound by the technical committee's last
> final word? I also think that's where the major difference should end.

	If "political" is having different objectives I agree, if that means
"ideological" I don't agree.
> My argument in that essay is this: Both CDDs and Ubuntu and UserLinux
> and others are forking from an political and organizational
> perspective. Lets not fixate on the political differences and find
> ways and common tools to collaborate with each other!

	Yes this is right, saying Ubuntu is repeating errors is not a reason
for not working together. (and I'm not even an "official" part of any

> > I think that if the developers working for companies on Debian
> > should push for a time-based release cycle as a GR it would be
> > aproved with great joy. Of course with a release cycle more in the
> > like of Red Hat Enterprise than GNOME's or Ubuntu's 6 months.
> I think this is wishful thinking. The release managers *wanted* a 1
> year release cycle. It didn't happen. d-i wasn't ready, the social
> contract changed and the release critical bugs were simply not
> fixed. You can't create a GR to force Debian to go fix release
> critical bugs buy a certain date! You can, but it won't work.

I think that the way of fixing this unpredictability is lobbying inside
Debian to go for a time-based release cycle, not forking. And yes, I can
create a GR to force it: If a package is not ready at a certain date it
won't be on the Debian release. This will work out perfectly apart from
base, but this is smaller and more predictable.

For example d-i was not ready not only for sarge, but also for woody, if
six months before the date marked for woody release they had recovered
the boot-floppies woody would have been out it time.

> Personally, I don't think Debian should ever release again. :) I think

	Yes this would be very good news for Canonical, Ltd. :-D

> we should create an infrastructure for the release of custom
> distributions and only custom distribution! I think debian-server and
> debian-desktop might be the big two and I think they should release
> frequently but there could be tons of others ones. Debian should be
> the big pool from which we all work.

	I agree that no one should ever install anything but a CDD, but still
based on Debian Stable.

> My entire point was that all derived distributions and all CDDs are,
> from a purist technical level, forks and we need to drop the stigma

	From a purist technical level every system that has Debian installed
with any /etc file touched by hand is a fork. ;-)


	Miguel A. Arévalo

Reply to: